Remember the red dragon in the Watcher's Keep? He's not a bad guy at all (the Oversight mod even changed his alignment to one which is much more closer to his personality, Chaotic Neutral), so though he has the powerful Staff of Ram, I really can't find any other reason for my Neutral Good character to kill him. I know dragon slaying is nessecary for a powerful adventure group, but slaying a not-so-bad dragon just for his treasure, or fun? Is that a thing for Good alignment people? And what about Paladins? They are Lawful which means they may kill anything which is potential evil, but what about their Goodness? Doesn't it prevent him from slaughtering a baby, innocent goblin? Or a neutral hearted red dragon?

Red dragons are not chaotic neutral; they are lawful evil. Equate them to Edwin -- self-serving, pompous and over-inflated.

Choosing whether or not to slay him, or any dragon for that matter, comes down to role-playing. A neutral character would not necessarily slay them as it could disrupt the balance; an evil character would not necessarily slay him because of fear of retribution or if they see the dragon as a powerful potential ally (though they might try to kill him at the first sign of weakness). A good character would likely slay the dragon as they view all evil as needing to be eradicated in order to further the cause of good.

As far as roleplaying goes, I wouldnt necessary kill him, unless your alignment was lawful good OR chaotic evil. Lawful Good perceives all aberrations in nature as evil and hence to be destroyed...case in point, especially in IWD2, whenever I had my Paladin NPC talk to a (initially) neutral Demon or NPC, he would choose the "no matter what you say or do, I am going to kick your a**" response...with no other choice...whereas the other alignments didnt necessarily have to.

As far as the chaotic evil guy goes, he lives for evil AND chaos...killing dragons would count... ;)

Faraaz, I can't really agree on LG. It rather sees evil unnatural things as a pest and to be destroyed, but the actual alignment of a creature is of essential importance. Otherwise, tieflings would be killed on sight.

Not even evil alignment is enough to say goodbye to a creature, though. The matter is not evil thoughts, but evil deeds and potential danger. Even if such a threat is removed, it's for the danger to be avoided more than because of it's evilness. Punishment may play some part, but just-because-it's-evil doesn't go. Daemons etc are just meant to be evil and pose threat - they personify evil - so they're put down without much talking. Needn't be the same with dragons.

I don't kill Saladrex. If I were to kill creatures for being rude (and even evil at that), I would have to purge half the Athkatla city.

Maybe you could summon a Pit Fiend (or similar summons, and berserk them) to get him to hostile?
That he attacked you first is a good reason to retaliate. Besides, all clerics on the game short of Aerie would probably agree on killing Saladrex.

Maybe you could summon a Pit Fiend (or similar summons, and berserk them) to get him to hostile?
That he attacked you first is a good reason to retaliate. Ain't that a little cheesy, not to say evil?
If you are a good alighnment character, IMHO means you don't attack without good reason and to lure him to attack you is an evil way, again IMHO.
Red dragons are not chaotic neutral; they are lawful evil. Equate them to Edwin -- self-serving, pompous and over-inflated.
And Drizzt Do Urden who is a drow is a chaotic good character while drows by default are chaotic evil. Exceptions exist to confirm the rules ;)

Quote:
Besides, all clerics on the game short of Aerie would probably agree on killing Saladrex.

I think Aerie would want to kill him very much... I mean.. she is a rascist. Remember her response when you save innocent helpless little Viconia?

Maybe you could summon a Pit Fiend (or similar summons, and berserk them) to get him to hostile?
That he attacked you first is a good reason to retaliate. Summoning demons is already an evil act. Similar to this, I never let Aerie or Anomen cast Animate Dead -- that's just simply ridiculous.

If you read through the dialogue with Saladrex, you'll find that his personality is just almost the same like the funny Spectator Beholder. He even say something like "must everything end in bloodshed?" if you challenge him for a fight.

A slight correction. The default Red Dragon is not Lawful Evil, but Chaotic Evil. There's quite a difference.

That's roleplaying your PC. Roleplaying a party is something else entirely - though you exercise control over them, remember that they yet have their own minds I've no doubt Anomen would want to tough out Saladrex.
He'd be disgusted over the PC's decision of not fighting Saladrex and attack him on his own probably.
But this is LN Anomen.

Aerie's mind changes too often... remember how she pitied Kala even after she was previously in a state where she would've killed him then and there?
That was after Kala spoke up. After your conversation with Saladrex, her point of view might change as well.

As far as I can see a neutral good or chaotic good character would have no reason to kill the dragon. The Neutral Good character would simply view the dragon as no threat to civilisation in any way while the Chaotic Good character would be respectful of the dragon's ways and his embracing of that which is not the norm.

Lawful good wouldn't even parley with the dragon. Red Dragon = evil. Evil must be vanquished. There is no compromise! Slay the wyrm!

Red, Black, White, Green, Blue dragons are evil.

Silver, Bronze and Gold are nice friendly dragons.

As far as I know Green isn't evil but is Chaotic Neutral. However I could be wrong.

All chromatic dragons are evil.

All metallic dragons are somewhat good aligned.

Yesiree, though sometimes I just want to give Adalon a swift quick in the ass, the arrogant ****e. Would that be too out of the way in role playing for a neutral good? (heh).

I remember when I first met Saladrex. I had quite a problem deciding what to do about him. I really wanted to leave him alone, after all even if you insult and threaten him he won't attack. But I wanted to see what cool loot he dropped (and Imoen wasn't good enough of a pickpocket to take anything from him) so I eventually decided to attack him. Didn't feel good about it though (darn Neutral Good alignment <grin>).
The second time through, I suppose I must have cast something out of his line of sight that provoked him because as soon as I came within sight he went hostile, so I got off easy that time (if being hit full force by a angry red dragon's breath can be considered 'getting off easy).

I didn't kill him, I found him cool. Well, he's pompous, but if you were a red dragon you won't be too humble either, would you? Besides, few items really make a difference in your party. Playing wisely does. So, I don't think the Staff of The Ram is enough reason to kill him.

He is a dragon; there is experience and loot for the taking. Well a crappy quarterstaff but there is still the XP.

The green dragon is indeed evil, what do you get for not killing him? You leave the Watchers keep and just leave him there? Why would you do that?

Saladrex is indeed evil, well in the book he was evil.

He is a dragon; there is experience and loot for the taking. Well a crappy quarterstaff but there is still the XP.

The green dragon is indeed evil, what do you get for not killing him? You leave the Watchers keep and just leave him there? Why would you do that?
Because my character don't have any roleplaying reason to kill him, and he don't have any knowledge about loot and XP.

I play the game for RP fun, not just for loot and XP. If I was, I would prefer Diablo.

He's a bad guy all right. You better believe it. The D&D 3rd edition Monster Manual says quite clearly that red dragons are "Always chaotic evil."

They don't necessarily have to always show their true colors, because dragons generally have very high charisma, intelligence, and wisdom.